208 SETTLEMENT BY HTRING AXD SEEVICE. 



employs several men under him to assist in doino- the work, is nof a 

 workman or labotirer within the tiue meaning of 1 & 2 WiU. IV. c. 37, 

 although he does a portion of the work himself. 



^' If any portion of the year, Iwirover short, is excepted, during which the 

 servant is not under his master's control, whether that exception be express 

 or by necessary implication fi'om the terms used, th^ hiring cannot lie 

 considered a hiring for a year so as to confer a settlement, although tlie 

 contract be for a year's service, subject to such exceptions ; thus where 

 a man was hired for a year, with liberty to let himself for the harvest 

 month to anyother person (Eex v. Bishop Hatjield, Rex v. Atthorne), it 

 was held that he could not gain a settlement by service under such a 

 hiring ; so where the servant agreed for liberty to be absent eleven days 

 during the sheep-shearing season (Rex v. Empingham), or during the 

 sheep-shearing season {Rex v. Arlington), or to work shearman's hours 

 and to be at liberty at all other times {Rex v. Buckland Denltam) ; or 

 as a colt shearman, to work twelve hours each day {Rex v. North JVibley); 

 or where the hiring was for a year from Michaelmas, to go away a month 

 at harvest, and make up the time after Michaelmas {Rex v. Turveg)." 

 And again : " Where the only circumstance from which the intended 

 duration of a contract of hiring and service can be inferred is the reser- 

 vation of wages weekly, it must be taken to be a weekly hiring, as 

 where a servant in husbandry was to serve for the weekly wages of 4s., 

 board, washing, and lodging, except in the harvest month, when his 

 wages were to be increased to 10s. 6d. per week, and then again reduced 

 to 4s. {R£x V. Dodderhill) ; or where the hiring was at 8s. a week, and 2 

 guineas for the harvest, to do anything the gardener should set him 

 about (Rex \. Lamheih) ; or when a gardener having asked £20 a year, 

 his master refused that, but agreed to give him so much a week (Rex v. 

 Warminster)." But if there is anything in the contract of hiring to 

 fihow that it was intended to be for a year, the reservation of weekly 

 wages will not control it. (See also Rex v. Birdhrook, Rex v. Hampreston, 

 Rex V. Great Yarnioidh, and Rex v. Pershore, and other cases collected 

 in ]\Ir. Manley Smith's "Law of Master and Servant," pp. 44-47). 



"Where defendant agreed to take plaintiff, a shepherd, into his service 

 for 50s. and his board and lodging for five weeks, next ensuing after 

 the 28th February, but afterwards refused to let him enter his service, 

 ])laintiff' recovered £5 damages for such breach of contract (Clark v. 

 Allatt). 



It was left by Parke B. to the jury in Louth v. Drummond, at King- 

 ston Spring Assizes, to say wluit notice a farm haiJiff was entitled to ; 

 and they said that the master was not justified in giving only a monDCs 

 notice, and gave a verdict for a year's wages. In Bulling v. Ellice, 



